Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OF NUCLEAR POWER IN FINLAND:
OLKILUOTO 3, AND MORE…
Jarmo Vehmas15th REFORM Group meeting
Schloss Leopoldskron, Salzburg, 10.9.2010
CONTENT
1. Olkiluoto 3: Basics
2. Olkiluoto 3: About TVO
3. Olkiluoto 3: Delays
4. Olkiluoto 3: Financing and increasing costs
5. Olkiluoto 3. Conclusions
6. Government decision-in-principle, June/July 2010
7. Fennovoima: Shareholders
8. Fennovoima: Site alternatives
9. Olkiluoto 4 and Fennovoima: Conclusions
OLKILUOTO 3: BASICS• Fifth nuclear reactor in Finland, ordered by TVO, a private power company• TVO already has two units, taken into use in 1978 (OL 1) and 1982 (OL 2).
State-owned Fortum has two units in Loviisa, taken into use in 1977 and 1981
• Attemps for a fifth unit were made ijointly by Fortum and TVO in mid-1980s (cancelled after Chernobyl), in early 1990s (rejected in 1993 by the Parliament),
• TVO submitted the OL 3 application in 2000 and it was accepted by the Government and ratified by the Parliament in 2002.
• OL 3 is a new plant design, European pressurized reactor (EPR) by AREVA, 4300/1600 MW
• The construction license was granted and construction started in 2005.• Original scedule and budget: In commercial operation in 2009, turnkey
contract of €3.2 bn
2. OLKILUOTO 3: ABOUT TVO• Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO), is a Finnish power company which produces electricity to
its shareholders only.• According to its articles of association, TVO shareholders pay fixed costs in relation to
their shares of the stock, and receive corresponding right to the produced electricity.• TVO Shareholders pay the moving cost in relation to their use of the produced electricity.• TVO makes no profit as a company, and the shares do not give right to dividends.• This is called as ”Mankala principle”, the name refers to a Supreme Administrative Court
decision made in 1963 in a case where Oy Mankala Ab (hydropower company) was charged on paying hidden dividends to its shareholders.
• Power companies of this type became very common in Finland after this decision.
PVO shareholder groupsPower companies 21,4Municipalities, municipal energy utilities 7,3Forest industry 60,7Other industry 6,5Others 4,1Total 100,0
OLKILUOTO 3: DELAY 1
Construction started in 2005. Originally planned schedule: Commercial operation in the first half of 2009.
Delays in schedule characterize the whole project… now up to 4 years behind the schedule according to TVO press releases:
•11.07.2006: OL 3 into commercial operation in 2010
•10.08.2007: Demanding safety features delay OL3 civil construction works
•28.12.2007: AREVA-Siemens estimate OL 3 to start operation in summer 2011
•17.10.2008: Start-up of OL 3 may be postponed until 2012
•31.12.2008: OL 3 delay and related costs into arbitration
•13.01.2009: AREVA-Siemens now estimates OL 3 will be completed in summer of 2012
•15.10.2009: Start-up of OL 3 nuclear power plant may be postponed further
•07.06.2010: OL 3 will be in electricity production in 2013
OLKILUOTO 3: DELAY 2No single reason, rather a range of failures…• Lacking experience in Finland: TVO’s previous orders, OL 1-2 were
constructed 25 years ago• Lacking experience, in particular: OL 3 is the first order of AREVA’s
new reactor design, EPR• Problems in the quality of work and materials (e.g. welding, concrete),
as well as in some equipment • Delays in detailed parts of plant designs• Coordination/management/communication problems, between the
different actors: vendor (Areva-Siemens), customer (TVO), safety regulator (STUK), and subcontractors,
• Finnish safety requirements (instrumentation & control systems) vs. plant design
• Too optimistic schedule
OLKILUOTO 3 : FINANCING AND INCREASING COSTS…
Original cost range presented for the Finnish Government was €1.7 - €2.5 bn. Estimated costs keep increasing…•Turn key contract between TVO and Framatome-Siemens joint venture with a fixed price of ”around €3 bn” (source: TVO).•In December 2003, Bayerische Landesbank (BLB) gave a €1.95 bn (60 % of the budget) syndicated loan (interest rate 2.6%) to finance the TVO order with a fixed price of €3.2 bn•Export credit guarantee by French Government (€0.6 bn) via COFACE in March 2004•After this, the syndicated loan was reduced to €1.35 bn, but it was replaced by a new loan of €1.6 bn. This is nowadays the only TVO credit in place.•In December 2008, Areva-Siemens filed a request to ICC for arbitration concerning delay in the project and claiming €1 bn to cover the incurred costs. In April 2009, TVO submitted to ICC its answer including á counterclaim of € 1.4 billion. •Most recent cost estimate of OL 3 provided by Areva is €4.7 bn (50 % over budget)•Siemens pulled out of joint venture with Areva in early 2009 – Areva needs to cover Siemens 34 % share, estimated value €2.05 bn•Shortly Finnish anti-nuclear movement estimated the OL 3 cost to be €5.5 bn (70 % over budget).
OLKILUOTO 3: CONCLUSIONS 1
• Finnish electricity market part of the Nordic electricity market, one of the most competitive in the world. Large number of producers/power companies, and well developed legislation on opened electricity markets
• For Areva, order from Finland was an opportunity to show that nuclear power can survive in the liberalised electricity markets – big boost for nuclear
• In OL 3, everything has gone wrong. What are the consequences? Somebody will suffer; candidates include Areva, TVO and its shareholders, electricity consumers in Finland, French and Swedish taxpayers
• Depends partly on open cases: Results from the arbitration and possibly forthcoming RELATED court case
• OL 3 clearly shows the economic risks of investing in nuclear in the open electricity market in general and economic rísks nuclear in particular
• Nuclear is not a cheap option in liberalised electricity markets
OLKILUOTO 3: CONCLUSIONS 2
• The investigation of OL 3 in relation to EU competition legislation (e.g. state aid) was dropped, but may rise again.
• Claims that nuclear power can be implemented without help of the state• Examples of state contribution in OL 3:
- Responsibility of nuclear accidents strongly limited by the state (without it nuclear power had never been built
- State-owned power company’s (currently Fortum) share in TVO was originally a political prerequisite for realisation of TVO nuclear plans
- Export credits from French and Swedish governments to TVO via export credit agencies is not private aid
GOVERNMENT DECISION-IN-PRINCIPLE JUNE/JULY 2010
TVO: Olkiluoto 4
Fennovoima: Simo or Pyhäjoki
Fortum Power and Heat: Loviisa 3
Application date 25.4.2008 14.1.2009 15.2.2009
Reactor alternative 1
ABWR Toshiba-Westinghouse BWR 4300/1600 MW
ABWR Toshiba-Westinghouse BWR 4300/1600 MW
ABWR Toshiba-Westinghouse BWR 4300/1600 MW
Reactor alternative 2
ESBWR GE-Hitachi (GEH) BWR 4500/1600 MW
KERENA (SWR1000),AREVA BWR 3370/1250 MW
ESBWR GE-Hitachi (GEH) BWR 4500/1650 MW
Reactor alternative 3
APR1400 Korean Hydro & Nuclear Power PWR 4000 /1400 MW
EPR AREVA PWR 4590/1700 MW
AES2006 Atomstroyexport (ASE) PWR 3200/1200 MW
Reactor alternative 4
EU-APWR Mitsubishi Heavy Industries PWR 4450/1700 MW
APR1400 Korean Hydro & Nuclear Power PWR 4000/1400 MW
Reactor alternative 5
EPR AREVA PWR 4600/1700 MW
EPR AREVA PWR 4590/1700 MW
Estimated costs 3-4 billion € 4-6 billion € 4-6 billion €
Estimated construction time
6-8 years. Commercial operation before 2020. 4-5 years/reactor 10 years. Commercial production in
2020.
Specific Mankala principle 1-2 reactors;Mankala principle Option for district heating included
Government decision-in- principle
Benefits the soviety as a whole, Parliament ratified , votes 120-72
Benefits the society as a whole, Parliament ratified, votes 171-21 Doesn’t benefit the society as a whole,
SHARE-HOLDERS
FENNOVOIMANUCLEAR SITEALTERNATIVES
Karsikkoniemi/Laitakari
Hanhiniemi
OL 4 AND FENNOVOIMA CONCLUSIONS
• Participating in a power company as a shareholder has gained increasing popularity in Finland – Fennovoima with new shareholders including E.ON
• Finnish Governments always been pro-nuclear• In political discussion, nuclear considered as necessary for
replacing the retiring capacity and reaching the EU targets relating to climate policy
• Economic risks of nuclear and the OL 3 problems have not become a big issue of political or even public discussion in Finland. Why?
• Nuclear still an important reference in comparison of electricity production alternatives
• Government decison-in-principle is valid for 5 year
THANK YOU!
Dr. Jarmo VehmasUniversity of TurkuFinland Futures Research CentrePinninkatu 47FI-33100 TampereFinland
[email protected]://ffrc.utu.fi
